Isn’t there some rules about Orphaned aircraft too? Like the Bulldog for example. I don’t fully understand this, but take our Commander, the company who built it no longer exists, and spares can be challenging to get sometimes :) Out of curiosity could this be moved to a CAA permit?
I do think this was possible in the past. I do know some older certified aircraft which fly under PFA as they are restored by non certified company or people. The same is true for the Netherlands where a few certified aircraft fly as experimental as they have been restored by unlicensed people.
I think this is no longer possible. These aircraft I do know are all Annex II aircraft, and where put on experimental before EASA. Experimentals are under NAA control, so on should contact NAA on this.
the company who built it no longer exists, and spares can be challenging to get sometimes :)
Their are quite some aircraft types for which this is true. Suchs as Piper PA-30, General Avia F22 etc.
With the PA-30 their is a club who does do some spares and modifications or at least they try to coordinate things, to keep them flying at a reasonable cost.
If I had time I could dig up the UK CAA publication which basically said exactly what I said!
As I said, not correct, although not entirely wrong 
The point is Peter, this “permit” stuff makes no sense other than in the UK. I cannot fly my experimental on a “permit” other than in the test period of min 25 hours. When that is finished the aircraft have to receive a special C of A to be allowed to fly. Microlights essentially fly on a permit, since they never receive a C of A and never can, because they are not airworthy according to the definition. They have to renew the permit each year. You can build a microlight as an experimental though, and receive a C of A when the test period is over.
then somewhere between 90% and 99% of the European GA fleet would do it immediately.
The CAA have thought about this, even the FAA You are only allowed to do “yearly” (or 100 h or larger) if you have actually built the aircraft yourself – and – have taken a course in basic maintenance. If you buy a finished homebuilt aircraft you will never be allowed to do a yearly by yourself. The course is probably different from country to country. In Norway it consist of a weekend of theory and to do the “yearly” on your own aircraft 1 or 2 times together with a certified mechanic. If you have not built it, you can still do a lot of stuff like modifying and changing things, but you can never sign the book for a yearly that shows the aircraft is airworthy. The original builder can also do the maintenance with the correct permissions.
In the UK with this permit system, I don’t understand how this even is supposed to work, because the permit has to be renewed. Only an official person of some sort can renew the permit each year by doing some form of inspection. Since the aircraft does not have a C of A, any inspection and/or maintenance to keep it airworthy is also irrelevant. It will be like a microlight. Then it doesn’t really matter who has built it or who is maintaining it, the aircraft is not airworthy (according to definition) in any case, it is only flying on a permit.
These are very different systems. For practical purposes there aren’t much differences I guess, other than a permit aircraft will be more restricted. Typically no NVFR or IFR and restrictions for long distance over water etc.
According to the latest rumors EASA will ease up on this draconian need for maintenance organizations for light and non complex aircraft as well as CAMO. They will make it simpler and go from organization based approval to individual based approval. To me this sounds like maintaining an EASA reg will be as simple as maintaining an experimental (for someone that has not built it themselves). There was also talk about delegation of inspection work to user organizations (I guess this means EAA and/or NLF in Norway) and LAA? in the UK (don’t know about other places). The specifics are yet unclear, but huge simplifications are in fact coming. I am positive that the fears you have that experimentals will take over the GA fleet are unfounded
The CAA have thought about this, even the FAA You are only allowed to do “yearly” (or 100 h or larger) if you have actually built the aircraft yourself – and – have taken a course in basic maintenance.
Yes, something like that. Those are the rules for FAA Experimental Amateur Built. For factory built aircraft it’s a bit different: while standard category FAA aircraft can in fact be moved indefinitely into Experimental (or in and out again), annual inspections must be signed off in the maintenance logs by an A&P mechanic (although no longer an IA). Moving to Experimental actually doesn’t get done a lot with normal ‘touring’ aircraft, because under FAA rules they are far easier to maintain in the conventional manner than under EASA rules, no such thing as ‘orphans’ and no recognition of any organization to provide ‘support’. Where you do see planes moving into Experimental is with aerobatic aircraft, where the owner modifies the airframe and/or engine for increased performance. For instance, a friends factory built Pitts was moved into Experimental Exhibition before he bought it. He’s an IA so the annual inspection is not an issue for him (he could sign off his own plane either way) but he can and does modify it now with only a logbook entry. Sailplanes also get moved over occasionally, although in their case the aircraft is often imported without FAA certification in the first place.
